Talk:Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: Stephen Walch (talk · contribs) 07:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Kusma (talk · contribs) 08:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will take this one. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Content and prose review

Lead seems short, but I'll comment on that in detail later. At first glance, I am missing the explanation that it is called "Basiliensis" because it is in Basel.
Content: Link codex.
I think gospel should be lowercase per MOS:CAPS but I could be wrong
The Greek words κεφαλαια and τιτλοι probably ought to have accents
Would we expect reference to the Eusebian Canons? I do not understand what "and where they overlap" means here.
You appear to enjoy using parentheses (perhaps excessively so). Some of them could perhaps be combined with the rest of the text for improved flow, perhaps just in a comma-separated subclause.
Minuscule should link to Greek minuscule instead of the current target.
Can you say more about the mode of writing? (The "u"-like shape of the beta, the "H" shape of the lowercase eta and the abbreviations like "iota upsilon chi upsilon" for "Iesou Christou" make it a bit hard to read for the untrained eye; I can't decipher the text in the image without looking at a modern printing next to it). There also seem to be some Greek ligatures in use.
Text: this is more about classification of handwritten gospels and variants. We learn what categories the text belongs to, but I am still a bit at a loss what these categories mean.
It might be easier to read if you started by a quick overview of classification schemes for biblical manuscripts and then describe what groups this one belongs to and what that means ("Biblical manuscripts are usually grouped by text type into Alexandrian, Western and Byzantine. The Codex Basiliensis belongs to the most common Byzentine type. The Byzantine manuscripts were further categorised by Hermann van Soden, who classified it as Kx, a group that had emerged in the 10th century").
Is there anything special about the two phrases excluded/included in this version?
It might be better to have "History" before "Text" to clarify the importance of the text for Erasmus
History of the codex: "The early story of the manuscript and its provenance is unknown" hmm, the lead section says something about palaeographic dating; shouldn't this be detailed here?
Might be good to know for context that the University of Basel was founded in 1460 (a very old university).
Do we know more precisely when the monks bought the codex? Are we right to assume it was during the time when Rhenish florins were a widely used currency? (Although it sounds like it was not the local currency in Basel).
"Since 1559 it was held in the University of Basel. Its later story is the same as that of Codex Basilensis and Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2." no citation given, and what is the later story?
Erasmus: now we are going back in time a bit. Erasmus was first in Basel in 1514? And then published something based on this codex in 1516?
"basis for the Gospels portion of the first edition of his Novum Testamentum" only the first edition? Did he use different editions later?
"with press corrections by his hand, and "barbarously" scored with red chalk to suit his page format." so did Erasmus write on the codex, or on his Novum Testamentum?
Estienne's edition of the Greek New Testament: why not use its name, Editio Regia?
No sources given for Estienne or his edition.
"2's readings became a basis for the Textus Receptus" the Codex has not been called "2" so far. Gloss the Textus Receptus to explain what it is.
"The manuscript was examined by biblical scholars ..." when was that and what did they do with it?
"one of the inferior manuscripts used by Erasmus" in what sense?
"Wettstein gave it number 2 on his list, and this siglum has remained since" the why aren't you using it more prominently?
"Basel University Library (A.N. IV. 1)" what does "A.N. IV. 1" mean here?
Lead: "Minuscule 2 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), ε 1214 (in von Soden's numbering of New Testament manuscripts)" this information is not in the body.
Is the text written on vellum or on parchment?
Infobox seems to be not certain whether the name is "Minuscule 2" (as at the top) or "Codex Basiliensis A. N. IV. 1" (as in the "name")?
The script is not "[[Greek language|Greek]]"
What does "Hand a lot of errors" mean? It is not in the body.
"Note Textus Receptus, full marginalia" also isn't clear. What does "full marginalia" mean?

An important manuscript with some history, so it is interesting to learn more about it. The article does need some work though. —Kusma (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Walch: the article does seem underprepared, but it is relatively short, so perhaps it is not too hard to fix the issues. Putting on hold. —Kusma (talk) 22:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Kusma: thanks very much for the review and the notes. I will admit this was my weakest GA nomination to date (mainly due to it not being really written by myself), so am not surprised at the improvements required. I've added some further info which I think fills it out a bit. I shall go through the rest of your suggestions when I have time. If you could do a sort of pre-review of the added material before I continue, it would be very much appreciated. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Stephen Walch: I think your additions are looking good: they add useful information and help round out the article, especially in terms of how the manuscript has lots of errors (and I learned the word "itacism" today). Please do reply to my individual comments when you address them (or choose not to act on them; I am fully aware that this is not really my area of expertise so I can be wrong). —Kusma (talk) 19:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks

Looking at Special:Permanentlink/1225890440.

1a: ok (but requires some context)
2a: no information about paleography or 11th/12th century
2b: "the text covering only 13.6 cm by 9.9 cm of each page." is not in that source
3a: ok (you could use this to cite the 13.6 by 9.9)
3b: nothing about κεφαλαια, Ammonian Sections, Eusebian Canons, tables of contents, subscriptions as far as I can see
4: Internet Archive link is dead.
4a: on which page does it say our specific codex is Byzantine?
5a: ok
4b (p. 144): the source says the corrector was Erasmus, which seems weird to leave out
6: Internet Archive link is dead, but 6a is likely accurate (only had access to a different edition).
7: could verify μὴ προσποιούμενος being removed from an online edition, but not the lengthy list of other texts. Again, according to Gregory 1900, the corrector was Erasmus
8a: "barbarously scored with red chalk" is a quote and should be attributed (and according to Sharpe, which I cite below, the red chalk was the printer's). No information about where Rhenish florins were used in the source.
9: source says the book was "the property of the Dominican Library in Basel".
4c: despite its low quality, this seems to be the manuscript that has Erasmus's hand corrections and was given directly to the printers to typeset.
1b: no information on Wettstein, and a 1908 book is a poor source for a statement "this siglum has remained since".

Overall, citations are imprecise, many of the sources are quite old, and few of them give a lot of detail on Codex 2 / Minuscule 2. (The title "Codex Basiliensis" is not used anywhere as far as I can tell). There are slightly newer and much more detailed treatments, for example John Lawrence Sharpe's "Observations on the Erasmian Notes in Codex 2" [1] (WP:TWL link; DOI is https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004266650_013 ).

General comments and GA criteria

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()

3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()

Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Prose is sometimes unclear, see above.
MoS: lead section is too short (and contains parts that should be also in the body). Compare MOS:LEAD.
Broadness: a bit short, but most things are covered
Not everything is cited, and some citations not covered by sources, which are rather old (see above)
Focus: ok except for the long list at John 8:6
File:Minuscule 2 (GA) Matt 1.jpg does not have a source or a US tag